Irwin Schiff, Patriot
I also see a potential for certain necessities that should be exempt would have the same problem ie manufacturers lobbying for exemption.
Don't get me wrong, I would defiantly support over the current illegal tax con, er I mean code. Great post BTW!
Aldrich was there at Jekyll Island for the secret meetings that spawned the private, for profit corporation known as the Federal Reserve. I doubt he worked very hard to scuttle the income tax. ALL the money generated by the income tax goes to the Federal Reserve, to pay them for the use of our own currency plus interest.
Get rid of the income tax but don't replace it with anything. 90% of government spending is unconstitutional anyway. If they need any money beyond what can raised be from tariffs, duties, and excise taxes then they can ask for voluntary donations. If it really is important people with be glad to give.
Ah. The precursor to sequestration.
The 16th Amendment does not make an income tax legal.
Rather, a tax on wages is an indirect tax already permitted.
There was a supreme court case on a tax on rent on property. The court properly held that a tax on rent for a property was close enough to a tax on property to be considered a direct tax, and thus only legal if levied in proportion to population.
The 16th Amendment permitted a tax on income, from what ever source, overriding that supreme court decision.
Excellent reminder..
The people did not originally surrender their income to the federal government. In essence that is what an income tax does, you give all your income to the government and it allows you to keep some of what you make (sound familiar? Obama, were gonna let the middle class keep more of what they make). No longer should we look at a tax rate, but rather a income return rate. The federal government doesn't tax you 25%, it gives you 75% of what you earned. At this point, it can't even be considered your income.
But the Marxism argument now goes further thanks to the Supreme court. Now the government can force behavior not by unconstitutional mandate, but by constitutional TAX.
Time for the FAIR TAX- take the power away from the government- repeal the 16th amendment.
"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied (emphasis added). … Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.
So I'll argue that the federal government can get as corrupt as it wants to. After all, not only was the federal government the toy of the rich which commoners weren't paying for, but our pioneering ancestors had their guns to protect themselves from Congress.
Also, consider that not only did the wealthy founders possibly intend for the wealthy to help police federal government spending to keep their taxes low, but also taking Congress's Article I, Section 8-limited powers into consideration, Justice John Marshall had officially clarified that Congress is prohibited from laying taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue which Congress could not officially address under Section 8.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So although there is now an understandable push for fair taxes, I not only like the idea that, historically, our ancestors not only did not pay federal taxes, but there was also Justice Marshall's long-forgotten precedent that Congress cannot lay taxes for anything that it cannot justify under its Section 8-limited powers. So I say let the federal government once more become the play toy of the rich, the rich uniquely paying federal taxes, Congress allowed to ignore Justice Marshall's clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes to whatever extent the rich are willing to tolerate.
Bookmark.
I also remind the reader that governments tax that which they want LESS OF. Are we sure we want LESS wealth creation? A tax -- if a tax there must be -- is fairest when imposed on CONSUMPTION. The FAIR TAX is ready to roll out now!So the underlying goal of the Fairtax is less consumption...
You read that a lot on the Internet, but I don't know how true it is. Bailey may have assumed the bill would fail and may have wanted to embarrass the Republicans, but I don't see that he was actually opposed to income taxes.
A century ago you could be a "Jeffersonian" or conservative Democrat from Texas and still favor an income tax on rich Easterners (or Northerners) -- all the more so if it meant lower tariffs and freer trade. And of course, nobody back home would ever make enough money to have to pay income taxes ...
Bailey was a paradoxical figure in other ways. He favored "free silver" in his early years but strongly opposed William Jennings Bryan, the great spokesman for the silver cause. Bailey got a name in his later days as a great opponent of the KKK, though he hadn't been afraid of playing the race card earlier.